So BOT gives Kingston a raise
- Thread starter ScWildthing61
- Start date
The extension is old news- announced a couple days ago, already a thread on it. I have seen no mention of a raise, and no articles that came out since it was accepted by the BOT have mentioned one.
I am okay with the extension, but he’s certainly not worth a raise at this point, if that indeed is the case.
To build a championship team, you must first have pitching and defense. We are on the right path there. Then comes the timely and clutch hitting, which we sorely lack, along with the apparent coaching in that aspect.
I would also like to see Kingston come out of the dugout more. Make the mound visits/pitching changes at times, speak with the umps if not argue. Act like he’s involved and the leader instead of just ‘being there’. Put some fire in ‘his’ team!
To build a championship team, you must first have pitching and defense. We are on the right path there. Then comes the timely and clutch hitting, which we sorely lack, along with the apparent coaching in that aspect.
I would also like to see Kingston come out of the dugout more. Make the mound visits/pitching changes at times, speak with the umps if not argue. Act like he’s involved and the leader instead of just ‘being there’. Put some fire in ‘his’ team!
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
If coaching extensions equaled recruiting success then Frank Martin and Will Muschamp would’ve been crushing it on the recruiting trail.
If lack of projected longevity was not impactful, our FB program would not have taken a cliff dive as soon as SOS said 2-3 more years.
As the guy who started the other thread, I was honestly wondering if I'd missed something when I sawthis thread. I would definitely own up to it, but I'm happy that nugget didn't slip by me. 🙂
Any coach can promise to be somewhere four years. Realistically no one can guarantee it. Recruits and their parents know this.
I suspect Spurriers drop off had as much (if not more) to do with his lack of interest in the recruiting process at the end of his career more than his honest sound bite about sticking around 2-3 more years.
You're looking for causation.. Extensions do not equal success, but rather extensions make success more likely.
That is not what we are talking about here though. A coach with 2 years left on their deal is a lame duck coach, and nobody wants to commit to that. No coach can promise they will be in any job 4 years from now, but they absolutely have zero credibility saying they will be when their own AD won’t commit to them for 4 years. This was a necessary move- if we are going to keep him, and we are, then we had to extend him. We did not give hime some huge raise or increase his buyouts, we simply hit rewind to where he was in his contract a few years ago before all this BS happened. Anybody with common sense understands why we did this.
pepsicock
Well-Known Member
I realize that we baseball fans are somewhat spoiled and expect the team to be in Omaha every year, me included. But the program showed a great deal of improvement over the previous season. We did manage to win games against the two teams who will be playing for the championship, so its not like we were pathetic. Although we failed to win the regional, we at least made it there and managed to go down to the wire with UVA, who looked fairly good at the CWS as well. Again, we have improved. And I believe we were only a shade off from being national championship caliber. To me, that deserves the recognition, as well as the extension. Y'all can get back to me if we start to show deterioration in the next season or two.
You know you’ll be alive, much less working at the same place in four years? Tell me where this guarantee promised land exists….
I don't think I agree with this and think it's one way modern college football has changed. I don't think this means so much with recruits anymore. They realize P5 college football is hyper competitive and what does the contract actually mean anymore? Today, you win you stay. You lose you go. Thats it.
Also, if a coach is really successful and is interested in leaving, they can find someone school willing to hire them away and pay the buyout. Contracts also don't keep coaches with schools any longer.
This is another concept that coaches agents continue to work to their clients advantage. And schools are too scared to call their bluff.
We can agree to disagree. The angle that is worked is other coaches use it against us on the trail.
Agree with all except the boldened part -- when it's us we're talking about. We give failing coaches the opportunity to show that they're absolutely, positively SERIOUS about losing before we show them the door. In the meantime, we allow them to totally destroy their programs to the point of every new hire facing a monumental rebuild.
Absolutely correct. The 4-to-6 year "recruit signaling" contract is a meme promulgated by agents over the years. No one has taken more advantage of this than Will Muschamp and Charlie Weis.
It would be interesting to compare the historical recruiting data of the schools versus contract terms. That would take some significant time and research though.
A possible compromise would be to provide them the 4-year for optics, with years 3 and 4 having a substantially lower base and escalation clause base on performance in the preceding years.
For example, if you have a coach receiving 4mil a year, he is guaranteed that figure for two years and then has a guarantee base of 500K in Years 3 & 4. If you have a successful Year 1, Year 3 bounces to 4mil and Year 4 moves to a 1mil guaranteed. Something along those lines - a sliding scale.
Recruit optics in place without the Hotel California contract. Crappy coaches don't get to sit on their couch and receive 7-figure checks each year from teams they wrecked.
Good luck attracting coaches by paying them less. When we hire coaches everyobe wabts to back up the brinks truck, then once they get here everyone becomes an expert on contract negotiation and completely ignore the laws of supply and demand. A coach like any asset is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. We have to pay what the market bears to acquire and RETAIN coaches just like any school. Anyone who thinks other coaches do not use a short remaining coach contract against us in recruiting is just flat wrong. Optics are important and that is why we extended him. There is no substantial increase to financial commitment, but he had a pretty good year and if we don’t want him recruiting with one arm behind his back, this extension was important.
Look where all of that has gotten us. Maybe it's time to go against the grain a bit and make a stand - make some waves in the college football community and even receive some press over it.
Following the herd has done nothing for us.
Recruiting sales can be spun a million different ways. If i was recruiting baseball players for UF, Arky, LSU, Vandy, MS State, etc against Carolina I would be telling the guys...."see how seriously they take winning at Carolina.....an ok year gets you a contract extension. Come here where we are 110% serious about getting to Omaha".
Not to mention did we really “back up the brinks truck” for the South Florida coach who was previously at Illinois State?
Nobody said we did…my brinks truck comment was about hoe FANS always say we SHOULD do that when we are hiring, then once we have a coach on staff they become suddenly frugal…. most of the brinks truck was regarding going after Florida’s coach at the time we hired Kingston if I recall. Which, sure he would have been a great hire but that was never close to actually happening. It was about as likely as getting Urban Myer to coach FB for us when we hired Beamer…
I would say our fans become a little more frugal minded after coaches arrive because of the mediocre results they actually produce once they are here.
